[Clas12_rgb] trains redefinition - feedback needed

silvia at jlab.org silvia at jlab.org
Fri Nov 13 13:59:58 EST 2020


Hello all,
I'll clarify a few more things to reply to various comments raised in thsi
thread:
- I never said inclusive is 60% of the total. I said (you can check my
slides at the review) that TRAINS are 60% of the cooked file, and
inclusive is 75% of the trains. This is the info Zhiwen passed me before
the review. The trains were 20% of the cooked data in the spring.
- the train we call "ndvcs" also includes pdvcs
- we are planning to put a Q2 cut, as I said previously, to reduce the
dvcs train size.

FX, we haven't analyzed yet any of these outbending data (as no cooking
besides calibration one was done), so I don't have a reply to your last
question yet.

Best regards,
Silvia


> It looks to me like that ndvcs number is much too high. What is the final
> fraction after the analysis is complete?
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 19:24 Zhiwen zhao <zwzhao at jlab.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear All
>>
>> Just to clarify some numbers
>>
>> for fall2019 outbending run, the current skim size in percent are
>>
>> dst         100
>> inc         39
>> ndvcs    14
>> edeut      8
>> two          4
>> jpsi          1
>>
>> Zhiwen
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Clas12_rgb <clas12_rgb-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Harut
>> Avagyan <avakian at jlab.org>
>> *Sent:* Friday, November 13, 2020 1:09 PM
>> *To:* clas12_rgb at jlab.org <clas12_rgb at jlab.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Clas12_rgb] trains redefinition - feedback needed
>>
>> Hi Silvia,
>>
>> We had some exchanges with Zhiwen. According to him the inclusive skim
>> size is 40% of dst for the outbending runs, not sure where that 60%
>> came.
>>
>> In case we drop the inclusive skim, decision should be made not just on
>> the basis of the space, but also the time of the analysis, which will be
>> obviously significant.
>>
>> In addition, in case we drop the inclusive skim, which was so far used
>> in SIDIS, we will need e'hX skims, which will be only about a factor of
>> 1.5-2 smaller.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Harut
>>
>> On 11/13/2020 11:42 AM, Silvia Niccolai wrote:
>> > Hi Stepan,
>> > Yes, we’ll go that way, and drop the inclusive train. We are
>> studying
>> how to modify the dvcs skim to also be compatible with the requirements
>> of
>> the Gmn analysis.
>> > Best regards,
>> > Silvia
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPhone
>> >
>> >> On 13 Nov 2020, at 17:09, Stepan Stepanyan <stepanya at jlab.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dear Silvia,
>> >>
>> >> I am not the one who requested the inclusive skim, but if my skim
>> will
>> be 60% of the DSTs I rather run my analysis off DSTs. So, decision to
>> drop
>> the inclusive skim seems is the right one.
>> >>
>> >> My two cents.
>> >>
>> >> Regards, Stepan
>> >>
>> >>> On Nov 13, 2020, at 8:02 AM, silvia at jlab.org wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear all,
>> >>> one of the two recommendation of the RG-B Fall review is to reduce
>> >>> considerably the size of our trains. Due to the much higher rates at
>> low
>> >>> Q2 of the outbending Fall data, compared to the Spring ones, our
>> inclusive
>> >>> train is too big. Our trains are in total 60% of the size of the
>> cooked
>> >>> run, and the inclusive train makes up for 75% of this. The committee
>> >>> recommends to scale down the skims size to no more than 20% of the
>> cooked
>> >>> files.
>> >>> We are therefore planning to remove this train. If people really
>> need
>> >>> this, please let us know, and we can discuss and find out if it is
>> >>> possible to find some additional cuts to include in order to make it
>> >>> bearable.
>> >>> We are also planning to add a Q2>1 cut to the DVCS train to reduce
>> its
>> size.
>> >>> Please get in touch as soon as possible if you have objections or
>> comments
>> >>> on this plan. I'd like to send a reply to the committee by this
>> evening
>> >>> (EU time).
>> >>> Thanks a lot and best regards,
>> >>> Silvia
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Clas12_rgb mailing list
>> >>> Clas12_rgb at jlab.org
>> >>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgb
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Clas12_rgb mailing list
>> > Clas12_rgb at jlab.org
>> > https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgb
>> _______________________________________________
>> Clas12_rgb mailing list
>> Clas12_rgb at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgb
>> _______________________________________________
>> Clas12_rgb mailing list
>> Clas12_rgb at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgb
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Clas12_rgb mailing list
> Clas12_rgb at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgb
>




More information about the Clas12_rgb mailing list